Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Larry Brock

Conservative Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations 28 statements translated No longer sitting

Follow by RSS

Brock presses for stricter bail, sentencing and prison rules, pushing bills that would keep repeat violent offenders and dangerous offenders behind bars and opposing the safety valve in Bill C-16, which he says would make mandatory minimum penalties optional. He argues by zeroing in on a single case — a killer out on bail, a carjacker serving his sentence at home — and often opens with ceremony, telling the House “it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise on behalf of the good people of my riding.” He details clause-by-clause committee work and cites his years as a criminal prosecutor.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
88 / 100 over 25 statements
Signal 79 / 100
Relevance 89 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Averaged over the 25 of 28 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Greetings and pleasantries.2.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.7

Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.1.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.6

Loses points less than most for Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Does well more than most

Answered ×1.9

Statements 28

Oral Questions ·

Public Safety

“People on bail and probation are committing violent crimes. The government must keep repeat violent offenders in jail.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that minister and the government have had 11 years to get this right. Last week, Canada suffered a tragic loss when officer Marc Pinizzotto was shot and killed in the line of duty. It has now been revealed that the man responsible for the horrific crime was already out on probation. Then we learned that the U.S. consulate shooter was on bail. Thugs, who are already before the courts, known to police and prohibited from possessing firearms, are now back on the streets. This should have never happened. How many more tragedies will it take before these Liberals stop treating bail conditions like a joke and start keeping repeat violent offenders behind bars?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“The man charged in the deadly Lambton College shooting is out on bail. I blame the Liberals for letting violent criminals out on the street instead of keeping them in jail.”

  • Opposition question in Question Period

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the criminal charged in the Lambton College shooting, which left one person dead, is not surprisingly out on bail. Only under these weak-on-crime Liberals could a man charged with murder and attempted murder be back on the streets before justice is served. These Liberals have turned our justice system into a joke, a revolving door for violent offenders. Victims get fear; criminals get another chance. How many more accused killers do these Liberals intend to release before they finally admit that their weak-on-crime laws are a complete and catastrophic failure?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

Government Orders ·

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

“Conservatives will not support the Senate change to this bill. We all agreed that someone convicted of a serious crime in the last 10 years cannot vouch for someone on bail. Now the Senate wants to let judges ignore that rule. I want to know why the government is changing its mind.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I can inform the parliamentary secretary that the Conservatives will never support the government’s position in supporting the Senate amendment. I reject the premise of her entire speech, with all due respect. She claims that the Senate amendment would do nothing to alter the circumstances by which the government agreed unanimously to the Conservative amendment that a person convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years could not act as a surety. Now the Senate wants to give discretion to all judges, without any independent verification that any accused across this country cannot find someone who does not possess a clean record or something outside of 10 years. In those circumstances, why is the government backtracking on the position we all agreed to?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“This change to the bill was supposed to apply only to Indigenous offenders in remote areas. Instead, the Senate wrote it to apply to everyone. Why did the government support changing it to apply to everyone?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Senate amendment that the government supports, my understanding was that the focus was to provide some special consideration for indigenous offenders in remote areas who may not have the resources and the swath of friends and family to act as sureties. My understanding was that there was supposed to be a specific carve-out. However, the language that came from the Senate is of general application, making no reference to indigenous offenders specifically. Why was there a change to make that more general, and why is the government now supporting it when there was an intention to carve out a specific exception for indigenous offenders?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Protecting Victims Act

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The member opposite seems to support a judge's decision to give only a 45-day weekend sentence to someone who had hundreds of images of men sexually abusing young girls.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member opposite supports the trial judge’s decision in Senneville that a 45‑day, weekend sentence for possessing hundreds of images of three-year-old girls being sodomized by men is entirely acceptable.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

In response to a question from Jeff Kibble

“I do not support this bill. It will lead to terrible results because criminals will argue that required minimum sentences are unfair and cruel.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would hope they would blame the justice, and more importantly, the tools that the justice relies upon, which the federal government provides, and this tool, Bill C‑16, is going to lead to absurd, obscene results across this country. I asked the justice minister to name one accused who is not going to say that a mandatory minimum penalty is going to lead to cruel and unusual punishment. Every single accused facing criminal charges where there is a mandatory minimum penalty is entitled to use that argument.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

In response to a question from Andréanne Larouche

“I support almost all of this bill to protect victims. We should split it so we can pass the good parts right now and remove the one bad part.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I heard a question there, but I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague. There are definite enhancements when it comes to victim safety and victim procedure in Bill C‑16, which is why I said at the outset that 99% of the bill is supportable. We would be very supportive of splitting the bill and having the good parts, that 99%, pass into the Senate, but split off that poisonous safety valve consideration in proposed section 63, which is what we would like to have taken off.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

In response to a question from Gurbux Saini

“The member is wrong. Conservatives have always said we will use the notwithstanding clause to overrule bad Supreme Court decisions on criminal law, like cases about child sexual abuse material.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely wrong in that assessment. We have always said, as a party, and our leader has been very clear, that we will use the notwithstanding clause when it comes to absurd criminal law and absurdity that has flowed from the Supreme Court of Canada when dealing with child sexual abuse material, which is a classic example.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“I want the House to vote against this bill. It lets judges ignore mandatory minimum prison sentences, which will lead to sentences that are too soft. The government should bring back tougher mandatory minimum sentences for gun and drug crimes instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise on behalf of the good people of my riding. This is now the third, or possibly the fourth, substantive intervention I have made on Bill C-16, not to mention the numerous interventions during our study at the justice committee and our extensive discussions during clause-by-clause consideration. I want to take this opportunity to pivot in a new direction. I want to take this opportunity to explain to Canadians the truth behind the bill, not the fiction and not the utopian world that the Liberal government is trying to portray. We have heard so often that it is like Chicken Little. The new Liberal government says that it is so serious about community safety and victim rights and that it is taking its responsibilities seriously. I have always said, during the numerous town halls I have conducted across this country, that the number one responsibility for the tired Liberal government is to keep Canadians safe. Why is it that after the 2025 election, there are three pieces of criminal legislation that would only move the needle so far but would not complete what is necessary to restore balance in our criminal justice system? We could take, for instance, Bill C-9. Everything was progressing reasonably at committee on Bill C-9 until a backroom deal was brokered between the justice minister and the Bloc Québécois to remove a 52-year-old statutory defence in the Criminal Code and potentially criminalize preachers and faith leaders who read out passages from their religious texts. That is Bill C-9. On Bill C-14, the government heard from all major stakeholders in this country for years. They were pleading and begging the government to give them the tools to keep violent repeat criminals off the streets. They were terrorizing communities and terrorizing victims. The government claims that it listened to those calls. It introduced Bill C-14. We talked about the principle of restraint in Bill C-14, which the government introduced under Justin Trudeau in 2019. It mandated that all accused were to be released at the earliest opportunity on the least restrictive conditions. We Conservatives said that we needed to put the appropriate brakes on those who would terrorize our communities repeatedly. We needed to replace the principle of restraint with the principle of protection of the community. Hence, the member for Oxford, my colleague, brought the jail not bail act, a reasonable piece of legislation supported by major police associations and chiefs across this country. The government rejected it, and now we are debating Bill C-16. Again, I want to separate fact from fiction. The fiction the government is trying to demonstrate and argue is that Conservatives were always obstructionist when it came to debating Bill C-16 in committee, when we were looking at and studying the bill. The fact of the matter is that 99% of Bill C-16 was always supported by the Conservative Party of Canada. There was a poison pill and a red line, which is contained in clause 63 of the bill, that would completely upend the effectiveness of our criminal sentencing regime. It would cause mandatory minimum penalties to no longer be considered mandatory minimum penalties by allowing judges, of their own accord or through application by the accused or their defence counsel, to argue that the application of a mandatory minimum penalty would result in cruel and unusual punishment. Where did this discussion come from? It came from that disastrous decision by our highest court just a few blocks down from this hallowed House, the Supreme Court of Canada. It ruled in Senneville that a one-year mandatory minimum penalty for the collection and the accessing of child sexual abuse material is contrary to section 12 of the charter. These two individuals who brought their case to the Supreme Court of Canada had amassed hundreds and hundreds of still images and videos of victims as young as three years of age engaged in the most grotesque form of sexual activity with adults. Our learned justices down the road deemed that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to subject those two sadistic perverts to serve a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty. If I were the justice minister, I would say one year is not enough. Lock them up for five years, because that is where they belong, or longer. If we were talking about a similar case a few hours away from the Ottawa region in the United States, in New York state, those two sadistic perverts would be looking at double digits in prison. That is the difference between our two justice systems. What is even more appalling about that decision, and this is the problem with Bill C‑16, is that the trial judge on their own determined that notwithstanding the size of the collection and the content, as disturbing as it is, a one‑year mandatory minimum penalty was too harsh. That trial judge gave those two perverts a 45‑day weekend sentence. What was our reaction? The collective will of Canada was shaken at its core. What is going on with our judges? What is going on with our justice system? It is no small wonder that Canadians and victims have a lack of confidence in our criminal justice system, when they see the highest court in this country ruling in the fashion that it did. We urged and pleaded with the government to come up and deal with this and use the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 of the charter has been enshrined in our charter since 1982. We would not have a charter but for section 33, but no, the government cannot do that. No, we now have to give judges that ultimate discretion to determine on their own whether a mandatory minimum penalty is appropriate in the circumstances, and there are only a few guardrails. Condition number one is that the only two offences they cannot touch are murder and treason. Condition number two is that they have to impose a jail sentence. However, in that regard, there is nothing stopping judges across this country from imposing a one-day jail sentence or a time-served jail sentence. Under Bill C‑16, that would be a lawful sentence. I asked the justice minister repeatedly in this House and repeatedly at committee, if they wanted to bring back mandatory minimum penalties that have been struck down, why can they not go further and include everything that was eliminated by Bill C‑5? Bill C‑5 is that disastrous piece of legislation that I warned David Lametti, then justice minister, would lead to adverse consequences. Now we have drug traffickers of fentanyl and other kinds of synthetic opiates, whom the judges across this country are calling the merchants of death, enjoying conditional sentences. They were once to be locked up for years, but now they can make an argument for a conditional sentence. Our justice minister shamelessly refused to bring back mandatory minimum penalties for all the drug offences and the majority of the weapons offences, including extortion with a firearm, which is raging across this country. For all those reasons, as indicated, I would encourage this entire House to vote against Bill C‑16.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“I want permission to share my speaking time with another member.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my intervention by asking for unanimous consent to split my time with my colleague, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

“I want the House to pass this bill. It forces the most dangerous criminals and repeat murderers to stay in maximum-security prisons instead of being moved to lower-security ones.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am truly honoured to rise today to debate an absolutely crucial piece of legislation that seeks to restore justice to Canada’s correctional services system. It would ensure the most dangerous offenders and mass murderers receive the punishment they absolutely deserve. I want to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, for introducing this bill, an act that would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This legislation is a common-sense response to growing concerns among Canadians that after 11 years of the Liberal government, our justice system is failing them and their families. In May 2023, under the Liberal government, Correctional Services Canada transferred convicted serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo from a maximum- to a medium-security prison. As many would know, Bernardo is the monster responsible for the abduction and deaths of Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffy and Tammy Homolka and the assault of dozens of innocent women. For the friends, families and communities of the victims, his release from maximum security was a traumatizing injustice. Sadly, after over a decade of Liberal weak-on-crime laws, this is not an isolated incident. It is simply a sad pattern. Sadistic sex killer Luka Magnotta; the brutal murderer of eight-year-old Tori Stafford, Michael Rafferty; serial rapist Russell Williams; and convicted triple murderers Dellen Millard and Mark Smich are to name a few. All these criminals are the worst of the worst, dangerous offenders who the Liberals have allowed to be released from maximum- and transferred to medium-security prisons. While there, they enjoy the comforts of hockey rinks, tennis courts, television and movies, while their victims’ families grieve and bravely remember their loved ones every single day. They truly receive a life sentence. This is precisely why Bill C‑232 is so important. The bill would amend the release act to require that dangerous offenders and those convicted of more than one count of first-degree murder be assigned to maximum-security prisons. It marks a step toward a balanced justice system. The legislation would make two meaningful changes. First, it would bring back just, proportional language to the act. Bill C‑232 would reinstate the legal standard for prison assignments as “only the necessary restrictions” language that was successfully implemented under the Harper government in 2012. Of course, in 2019, the Liberals had to gut that. Bill C‑83 amended the legal standard to be the least restrictive environment. When asked about the impact of this weak standard, the former director general of the corrections and criminal justice directorate at Public Safety Canada said, “The Conservatives are absolutely right. Of course it contributed to Mr. Bernardo’s transfer, because it is a principle that underlies all decisions...a fundamental one.” Reversing the detrimental impact of Bill C‑83 is crucial to rebalancing the Liberals’ crooked sentencing regime. Second, Bill C‑232 would make it absolutely mandatory for dangerous offenders like Bernardo, Millard, Smich, Magnotta and Rafferty to be sentenced to maximum-security institutions. Sadly, only 13% of dangerous offenders in Canada are currently housed in maximum-security prisons. In 2023, of the 736 classified dangerous offenders in our country, 580 of them were classified to medium-security environments. Nearly 90% of dangerous offenders are currently housed in minimum-security or medium-security prisons. In November 2025, Dellen Millard, the convicted triple murderer of his father, Laura Babcock and Tim Bosma, was transferred from a maximum- to medium-security prison. I echo Tim Bosma’s family’s question: “If a three-time convicted 1st degree murderer is rewarded for ‘good behaviour’ in the Canadian penal system and moved to a lower security prison, who then is filling the maximum security prisons? White collar criminals?” It does not add up. On this side of the House, Conservatives are listening. Bill C‑232 is a response to the outrageous pattern of loose security classifications from the CSC. Police and victim advocates recognize this bill as a long-overdue step towards victim protection and bringing back confidence in our justice system. Niagara Regional Police Service Chief Bill Fordy sees every day the impact of violent crime on our victims and communities and the value of these discussions. Police and law enforcement officials across Canada understand the importance of building back a justice system that Canadians can trust. Alicia Googoo, a survivor of childhood violence and founder of the advocacy organization, Our Heart on Our Sleeve, understands the risks of failing to take dangerous offenders seriously. She urged Parliament to act, saying that public safety and accountability “have consequences for real children, families and survivors.” When Paul Bernardo was transferred in 2023, members of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers in Quebec and Ontario were baffled by the decision, calling on the Liberal government to make a change. It did not. Tim Danson, lawyer for the victims’ families, was clear that “legislative refinement” is warranted when it comes to Canada’s most dangerous offenders, yet time and time again these Liberals ignore Canadians’ call to action. The Liberals claim to be tough on crime, but they repeatedly support legislation that hollows out our justice system and prioritizes offenders’ rights over victims’ rights. Bill C‑14 would preserve the principle of restraint that allows violent offenders to walk free and terrorize their communities. Bill C‑16 introduces a mandatory minimum safety valve, fundamentally undermining the deterrence and denunciation of MMPs and essentially handing criminals a “get out of jail free” card. What is more, the Liberals claim to have changed, but the truth is that they are the exact same Liberals with the exact same policies as the past 11 years. When Bernardo was released from maximum-security prison, the Liberal public safety minister at the time absolved himself of responsibility. He claimed to have no idea the transfer was coming, which no one believed, and absolutely failed to remedy the impact of this decision for Canadians. Thanks to relentless pressure from the Conservatives, the minister was shuffled out of cabinet, surely for this decision, yet the decision itself was never reversed. After that, the disgraced minister went on to be rewarded as the current Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The Liberals now have an opportunity to finally reverse course. By supporting this legislation, the government could finally mean it when the Liberals say they have changed, that it is a new Liberal government and they want to keep Canadians safe. In 2022, homicides reached the highest rate in 30 years. In January 2026, an Angus Reid poll found that 62% of Canadians believe crime has been rising in their communities over the last five years and do not feel safe. Now more than ever, we must protect our communities, safeguard victims’ rights and stand up against the most evil offenders in the system. In the words of Marcia Penner, Kristen French’s childhood friend, to Bernardo’s accomplice, “You will never win. Kristen, Leslie, and Tammy win. Their memories are very much alive and will be forever.... These girls will always be remembered, loved, and cherished.” Bill C‑232 exists to protect those memories.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Justice

“Violent criminals are getting light sentences and avoiding deportation, while victims suffer. I want the government to stop helping violent criminals stay in Canada and start supporting victims.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to watch violent offenders get lighter sentences, avoid deportation and stay in this country year after year. In Kitchener, a non-citizen strangled his wife in front of their child. He was found guilty. The victim and her child are now living in a shelter. He remains in Canada. Under these Liberals, violent offenders get sentencing discounts, delayed deportation and endless second, third and fourth chances, while victims get nothing but excuses. When will these Liberals stop bending over backwards to help violent criminals avoid deportation and start standing up for victims for a change?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“A non-citizen committed violent armed robberies years ago and is still in Canada. The government refuses to deport him. I want to know why the government protects this violent criminal instead of keeping Canadians safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are sick and tired of watching violent criminals get chance after chance while victims pay the price. A non-citizen committed multiple violent crimes in 2019. Seven years later, he is still in Canada. He carried out two robberies at gunpoint and pistol-whipped another victim, yet somehow, these Liberals keep protecting him from deportation. We Conservatives fought to end sentencing discounts for serious criminals. They voted against it. Why is avoiding deportation more important than protecting Canadians from violent criminals?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Government Orders ·

Protecting Victims Act

“The Prime Minister promised to work with other parties, but the Liberals shut down debate on this bill and would not hear more witnesses. I want the justice minister to explain why he is going against his leader's promise.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, literally within minutes, this is what the Prime Minister had to say. He pledged to work collaboratively with the House, stating that the government is “open to ideas from anyone”, yet at the justice committee, the Liberals actually shut down debate during Bill C-16. They did not allow additional days for additional witnesses to be heard. We now have the justice minister shutting down the will of Parliament to voice its concerns over Bill C-16. The question is simple: Why is the justice minister going against the will and direction of his leader?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“I take back what I just said. Instead, I say they are doing it for their own selfish reasons.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I withdraw that and replace it with “for their own selfish reasons”.

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis
“The Liberals used to always vote against cutting off debate when they were in opposition. Now they are doing it themselves. I want the justice minister to answer for going against what the Prime Minister promised.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, there was a point in time when the Liberals were in opposition. Those were the glory days, when they were in opposition— An hon. member: And the third party. Larry Brock: Madam Speaker, they were the third party, to boot. They would routinely oppose time allocation motions. They did it every single time. How hypocritical are they now? I have a question for the justice minister. Effectively, this runs completely contrary to the messaging of the Prime Minister. Literally within minutes of the Prime Minister securing a majority government following the by-elections and the floor crossings by the cowards who left the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

In response to a question from Michael Cooper

“The Liberals say they want to be tough on crime, but they are not being honest. They removed mandatory minimum sentences before, but now they say these penalties work. This bill was a chance to bring them back, and the justice minister will not explain why the government did not do that.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question, because that question exposes the severe hypocrisy of the Liberal government, which claims to actually give a damn about being tough on crime. When Bill C-5 was introduced, the Liberals claimed that it would address the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimum penalties. Here is an opportunity, and now they are saying mandatory minimum penalties work. This was an opportunity to reinstate them. I asked the justice minister several times why they did not, and not one—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

In response to a question from Andréanne Larouche

“This bill should have done more to fix peace bonds. Stronger peace bonds would protect women who need help. The government says it cares about victims, but its actions show it does not.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. I did participate in one committee meeting at the status of women committee, where we were discussing the ineffectiveness and the tragic consequences of the enforcement of section 810 common law bonds. It is unfortunate that the whole concept of section 810 consideration did not find itself within the confines of Bill C-16. This would have been a glorious opportunity for the Liberal government to strengthen section 810 orders to protect women who have no recourse other than to ask for that type of protection. Again, the government claims to be tough on crime and claims to be very cognizant of victims’ rights. Its actions speak to the opposite.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

In response to a question from Ruby Sahota

“The secretary of state is wrong about this bill. It only stops judges from lowering sentences for murder and treason. For every other crime, a judge could give a sentence as short as one day instead of a full year in jail. The Liberals are fine with that.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was at the justice committee. I was questioning witnesses. I participated in clause-by-clause. The secretary of state did not. What she is proposing is absolutely incorrect. The only limitation of Bill C-16 is that a judge cannot deviate from a mandatory minimum penalty for two offences: homicide or murder and treason. Everything else is fair game, so long as there is a jail sentence. There is nothing preventing an activist judge, a clever defence counsel or a desperate accused to say that a one-day sentence is appropriate, as opposed to, say, a one-year mandatory minimum penalty. That is fine with the Liberal government.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“I disagree. I did not hear the NDP member's change to the bill. Are you saying it is the exact same as what I just read?”

  • Speech on a bill

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. I did not listen to, nor did I take note of the content of, the amendment brought forth by the NDP member. Are you suggesting now that it is identical in every respect to what I just read out?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis